(11-02-2017 12:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 12:01 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 11:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 11:26 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 10:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So, how big a hole does this blow in the deficit? Before the fantasy of lower taxes raises tax revenue bull**** that is...

You do remember that deficit don't you...and the pledges from the GOP that everything must be paid for?

If this is a huge cut in taxes, what are the equal reductions in spending?

Lowering the burden on consumers, even modestly like this plan apparently does, will spur economic activity even further than the 3%+ growth glide path were on now.

An expanding economy, not anemic 1 +-% garbage like we endured the last 8 yrs, will also raise wages.

Increased Economic activity, higher wages, further growth in the markets all generate increased tax receipts.

More money in our pockets, more money flowing to treasury, more money for 401ks, public pensions and a whole host of other things.

It’s a WIN all the way around.


Just so much winning. I may need a nap.

Proof please?

Of what?


If you make more in income, don’t you pay more in taxes? Income and otherwise?

I thought you were implying that merely lowering taxes will spur the economy, increase wages, and increase revenue going to the treasury. If so, what proof do you have that tax cuts necessarily do these?

Well, no. In theory “merely lowering taxes” will simply lessen the $ amount generated in tax revenue.

That is, of course, if that’s all that happens. The beneficiary of the lower taxes takes that extra money and stuffs it under the mattress or something.

But, we all know that’s generally NOT what happens. That money gets put to work in a near infinite number of ways.

It is also spent much more efficiently by those earning that money than by sending it off to DC, having some 40% of it skimmed off the top by the insanely bloated bureaucracy then returned in some diminished degree to the people who earned it in the first place.

What kind of insanity is that?

(11-02-2017 01:05 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I just ran some preliminary numbers. Looks like we'll save about $4500 to $5000 per year. Pass it now!

Awesome!

Congrats!

That’s actually some real money, there.

(11-02-2017 01:19 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 12:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 12:01 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 11:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 11:26 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Lowering the burden on consumers, even modestly like this plan apparently does, will spur economic activity even further than the 3%+ growth glide path were on now.

An expanding economy, not anemic 1 +-% garbage like we endured the last 8 yrs, will also raise wages.

Increased Economic activity, higher wages, further growth in the markets all generate increased tax receipts.

More money in our pockets, more money flowing to treasury, more money for 401ks, public pensions and a whole host of other things.

It’s a WIN all the way around.


Just so much winning. I may need a nap.

Proof please?

Of what?


If you make more in income, don’t you pay more in taxes? Income and otherwise?

I thought you were implying that merely lowering taxes will spur the economy, increase wages, and increase revenue going to the treasury. If so, what proof do you have that tax cuts necessarily do these?

Well, no. In theory “merely lowering taxes” will simply lessen the $ amount generated in tax revenue.

That is, of course, if that’s all that happens. The beneficiary of the lower taxes takes that extra money and stuffs it under the mattress or something.

But, we all know that’s generally NOT what happens. That money gets put to work in a near infinite number of ways.

I don't disagree with that when that cut is significant enough and is given to the poor and middle class who actually need to spend it. The problem is that more than likely the largest portion of this tax cut will go those who don't necessarily need it to live. Therefore, they will just stuff it away.

(11-02-2017 01:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 01:19 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 12:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 12:01 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 11:29 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Proof please?

Of what?


If you make more in income, don’t you pay more in taxes? Income and otherwise?

I thought you were implying that merely lowering taxes will spur the economy, increase wages, and increase revenue going to the treasury. If so, what proof do you have that tax cuts necessarily do these?

Well, no. In theory “merely lowering taxes” will simply lessen the $ amount generated in tax revenue.

That is, of course, if that’s all that happens. The beneficiary of the lower taxes takes that extra money and stuffs it under the mattress or something.

But, we all know that’s generally NOT what happens. That money gets put to work in a near infinite number of ways.

I don't disagree with that when that cut is significant enough and is given to the poor and middle class who actually need to spend it. The problem is that more than likely the largest portion of this tax cut will go those who don't necessarily need it to live. Therefore, they will just stuff it away.

A. The poor and much of he middle class pay no income tax at all, or very little.how do you give someone a tax cut that doesn’t pay taxes?

B. These wealthy just “stuff it away” where? Buried in coffee cans in the back yard?

Lots of folks have money they “don’t need it to live on”, anyone ordering a delivery pizza for instance...

(11-02-2017 01:30 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 01:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 01:19 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 12:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 12:01 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Of what?


If you make more in income, don’t you pay more in taxes? Income and otherwise?

I thought you were implying that merely lowering taxes will spur the economy, increase wages, and increase revenue going to the treasury. If so, what proof do you have that tax cuts necessarily do these?

Well, no. In theory “merely lowering taxes” will simply lessen the $ amount generated in tax revenue.

That is, of course, if that’s all that happens. The beneficiary of the lower taxes takes that extra money and stuffs it under the mattress or something.

But, we all know that’s generally NOT what happens. That money gets put to work in a near infinite number of ways.

I don't disagree with that when that cut is significant enough and is given to the poor and middle class who actually need to spend it. The problem is that more than likely the largest portion of this tax cut will go those who don't necessarily need it to live. Therefore, they will just stuff it away.

A. The poor and much of he middle class pay no income tax at all, or very little.how do you give someone a tax cut that doesn’t pay taxes?

B. These wealthy just “stuff it away” where? Buried in coffee cans in the back yard?

Lots of folks have money they “don’t need it to live on”, anyone ordering a delivery pizza for instance...

I'm clearly not talking about people who pay no taxes. I'm at the low end of the middle class spectrum and I pay thousands in taxes.

But yes, the rich (that are going to get the bulk of this cut) stuff the money in bank accounts or the stock market, etc. They're not necessarily going to buy more stuff just to buy more stuff. They can already do that.

(11-02-2017 01:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 01:30 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 01:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 01:19 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 12:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I thought you were implying that merely lowering taxes will spur the economy, increase wages, and increase revenue going to the treasury. If so, what proof do you have that tax cuts necessarily do these?

Well, no. In theory “merely lowering taxes” will simply lessen the $ amount generated in tax revenue.

That is, of course, if that’s all that happens. The beneficiary of the lower taxes takes that extra money and stuffs it under the mattress or something.

But, we all know that’s generally NOT what happens. That money gets put to work in a near infinite number of ways.

I don't disagree with that when that cut is significant enough and is given to the poor and middle class who actually need to spend it. The problem is that more than likely the largest portion of this tax cut will go those who don't necessarily need it to live. Therefore, they will just stuff it away.

A. The poor and much of he middle class pay no income tax at all, or very little.how do you give someone a tax cut that doesn’t pay taxes?

B. These wealthy just “stuff it away” where? Buried in coffee cans in the back yard?

Lots of folks have money they “don’t need it to live on”, anyone ordering a delivery pizza for instance...

I'm clearly not talking about people who pay no taxes. I'm at the low end of the middle class spectrum and I pay thousands in taxes.

But yes, the rich (that are going to get the bulk of this cut) stuff the money in bank accounts or the stock market, etc. They're not necessarily going to buy more stuff just to buy more stuff. They can already do that.

Well, first off I don’t think the top marginal rate has been changed at all. The wealthiest are getting NO cut with this package, best I understand.

That’s a mistake IMO, but a political bogeyman better left avoided.

Doubling the exemptions and increasing the Kid deduction, the standard deduction and other adjustments will likely provide some form of tax relief for most if not all, THAT PAY INC TAXES.

Wash Po has already issued four freaking Pinocchio’s to Fransicko Nan and their tired ass talking points about a “give away to the rich”. Or this Van Hollen clown making a fool of himself, yet again, talking about “windfalls for wealthy corporations”.

But, to your notion that putting it in bank accounts or investing that money means “stuffing it away” is just silly. And I’m quite sure you know that.

First we want people saving and investing, so they aren’t a drain/burden later in life when wage income disappears.

Secondly, every one of those dollars is then kept OUT of DC and were all better off for that.

Third, that money is put to work making loans to homebuyers, car buyers, business start-ups, expansions whatever. Every one of those dollars is put to work somewhere, whether it’s spent on “consumption” ie that delivery pizza, or investment.

Very few are stuffing bills into the mattresses any longer...

(11-02-2017 12:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 12:14 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 10:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So, how big a hole does this blow in the deficit? Before the fantasy of lower taxes raises tax revenue bull**** that is...

Well there is a shaq load of new revenue in the form of not being able to deduct mortgages on mansions and not being able to deduct state taxes...

But yea tommy, shout out those DNC talking points.

Dude, kindly STFU. I loathe the DNC and the democrats just as much as you do and couldn't even cite ONE of their talking points anyway. My words are my own. Either address them or cite your proof I lifted them from someone, or just don't post...mmmkay?

Talking points are not always exact words bro.... And your post content is identical to DNC talking points.

Lord, please make it stop.

(11-02-2017 01:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 01:30 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 01:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 01:19 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 12:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I thought you were implying that merely lowering taxes will spur the economy, increase wages, and increase revenue going to the treasury. If so, what proof do you have that tax cuts necessarily do these?

Well, no. In theory “merely lowering taxes” will simply lessen the $ amount generated in tax revenue.

That is, of course, if that’s all that happens. The beneficiary of the lower taxes takes that extra money and stuffs it under the mattress or something.

But, we all know that’s generally NOT what happens. That money gets put to work in a near infinite number of ways.

I don't disagree with that when that cut is significant enough and is given to the poor and middle class who actually need to spend it. The problem is that more than likely the largest portion of this tax cut will go those who don't necessarily need it to live. Therefore, they will just stuff it away.

A. The poor and much of he middle class pay no income tax at all, or very little.how do you give someone a tax cut that doesn’t pay taxes?

B. These wealthy just “stuff it away” where? Buried in coffee cans in the back yard?

Lots of folks have money they “don’t need it to live on”, anyone ordering a delivery pizza for instance...

I'm clearly not talking about people who pay no taxes. I'm at the low end of the middle class spectrum and I pay thousands in taxes.

But yes, the rich (that are going to get the bulk of this cut) stuff the money in bank accounts or the stock market, etc. They're not necessarily going to buy more stuff just to buy more stuff. They can already do that.

You are being played and are responding just like the democrats want you to. Forget about bettering yourself and your family, and consume yourself with how much more money someone else may or may not get.

Trump is trying to get you real insurance that costs less and actually covers you being sick, and is trying to get you another few grand in your pocket in tax savings. Yet you are fighting him every step of the way. At some point, you need to kick political parties in the junk and start caring about the welfare of your family.

Uncle Milt Shut down the idea of rich people "hoarding" the money years ago.

(11-02-2017 02:15 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Uncle Milt Shut down the idea of rich people "hoarding" the money years ago.

He’s only like one of the best ever.

Clears that right on up.

(11-02-2017 02:21 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 02:15 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Uncle Milt Shut down the idea of rich people "hoarding" the money years ago.

He’s only like one of the best ever.

Clears that right on up.

He da man!

(11-02-2017 01:58 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 12:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 12:14 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 10:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So, how big a hole does this blow in the deficit? Before the fantasy of lower taxes raises tax revenue bull**** that is...

Well there is a shaq load of new revenue in the form of not being able to deduct mortgages on mansions and not being able to deduct state taxes...

But yea tommy, shout out those DNC talking points.

Dude, kindly STFU. I loathe the DNC and the democrats just as much as you do and couldn't even cite ONE of their talking points anyway. My words are my own. Either address them or cite your proof I lifted them from someone, or just don't post...mmmkay?

Talking points are not always exact words bro.... And your post content is identical to DNC talking points.

Curious...how in the hell do you what the DNC talking points are, but I don't even have a clue what they are?

Bottom line...move along with this idiotic meme please. The positions posted here by conservatives are pretty much republican talking points, AND WE DON'T GIVE A ****!!!!

(11-02-2017 02:21 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 02:15 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Uncle Milt Shut down the idea of rich people "hoarding" the money years ago.

He’s only like one of the best ever.

Clears that right on up.

But he's leaving out one key point. They don't invest said money into machines unless they have a product to sell....and people with money to buy that product. If the tax cuts don't materialize in great enough amount to the vast majority of the public then there is no money to purchase additional product, so the corporations don't make that additional product, so they don't buy additional machines to make said product, and then they don't hire more people.

What remains to be seen is what this thing is going to look like after it gets scored by the CBO and after Congress gets their meat hooks into it. If the cuts to those in the 12% and 25% brackets are not enough, it will not create the buying power to translate into the need for more equipment and workers.

My guess is that when it is made known how much the deficit and national debt will skyrocket that this will get gutted to pieces.

Additionally, I heard some rumblings that the bill attempts to make some key parts of this permanent...which I don't believe would qualify it for reconciliation...meaning it would need more than 51 votes to pass. Anyone heard something similar along those lines?

(11-02-2017 01:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But yes, the rich (that are going to get the bulk of this cut) stuff the money in bank accounts or the stock market, etc. They're not necessarily going to buy more stuff just to buy more stuff. They can already do that.

Which is called investment. The question is whether we need more investment or more consumption. Signs pointing to more investment include:

- Americans consume more and invest less than citizens of any other developed nation
- We are the leading importer in the world, with the largest trade deficit in the world
- We are the leading debtor nation in the world, both public and private sectors
- The largest single factor in reducing corporate tax rates below the statutory rates is taking advantage of lower tax rates overseas.

Keynes suggested that if you stimulate consumption too much and investment not enough, you reach a point where further stimulating consumption does not produce the projected multiplier effect. The multipliers associated with Obama's "stimulus" were in the range of 1.5 to 1.

These factors, taken together, suggest to me that we need investment stimulus, not consumption stimulus.

What that requires is the potential for a higher return on that investment. Cutting marginal tax rates for top individual incomes, without cutting business taxes, does not accomplish that.

I would allow an option the new tax plan for all the democrats to give more of their money if they don't feel taxes enough. Maybe tax athletes and entertainers 80%. Lots of good ideas

Looks like my family is going get hosed by this so called plan.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

(11-02-2017 10:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So, how big a hole does this blow in the deficit? Before the fantasy of lower taxes raises tax revenue bull**** that is...

You do remember that deficit don't you...and the pledges from the GOP that everything must be paid for?

If this is a huge cut in taxes, what are the equal reductions in spending?

Where was that concern when Obamacare was passed or when repeal was debated? Hell—the Democrats didn’t even bother to pass budgets for most of the Obama years.

Growth is the only way out. We borrow 40 cents out of every dollar we spend and most of our spending is on entitlement programs and defense. You can’t cut your way out of the budget mess. You either spur greater growth or print money—youre not going to get anyone to cut entitlements by 40% (and it gets worse in a few years when the baby boomers start retire in bigger numbers). This is really not a tax bill—it’s a bill aimed at spurring economic growth.

(11-02-2017 07:09 PM)maximus Wrote:  Looks like my family is going get hosed by this so called plan.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

How so?

Keep in mind there were some people tweeting very inaccurate info earlier, and even the Washington Post called them out on it.

(11-02-2017 02:21 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-02-2017 02:15 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Uncle Milt Shut down the idea of rich people "hoarding" the money years ago.

He’s only like one of the best ever.

Clears that right on up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM

Would you also support his idea on negative income tax or a UBI?